Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-11-03
THE DECISION.
Fuller Details Of Chief.Justlce
Waite,s Address.


The Chief-Justice, after making the
customary formal announcement OF
the case, said:
'When, as in this case, an applica-
ton is made to us on the suggestion
of one of our number to whom sim
lar application has been previously
addresse d for the allowance Of writ
of error to the highest court OF the
State, under section 700, revised stat
utes, it is our duty to ascertain not
only whether any question review
able here was made and decided in
the proper court below, but whether
it is of a character to justify us in
bringing the judgment here for re-
examination. In our opinion the
writ ought not to be allowed by the
court if it appears from the face of
the record that the decision of the
federal question which is complained
of was SO plainly right as not to re-
quire argument and especially If it is
in accordance with our own well-con-
sidered judgment in similar cases.
THE CUSTOMARY PROCEEDINGS.
When under our rule motion to
affirm is united with motion to dis
miss for want of jurisdiction the prae-
tice has been to grant a motion to af-
firm when the question on which our
jurisdiction depends was so manifestly
decided right that the case ought not
be held for further argument. Adopt
ing a similar rule upon the motions in
the court for the allowance of the writ,
it is apparent for certainty, that we
would not be justified as court in
sending out writ to bring up for re-
view the judgment of the highest court
OF State, when it is apparent on the
face OF the record that it would be our
duty to grant motion to affirm as
soon as it was made in proper form.
IN THE PRESENT CASE
We have had the benefit OF the argu-
ment in support of the application,
and while counsel have not deemed it
their duty to 60 fully into the merits
OF the question involved. they have
shown us distinctly what the decis-
ions were of which they complained
and how the questions arose. In this
way we are able to determine as a
court in session whether the errors
alleged are such as to justify us in
bringing the case here tor review.
THE PARTICULAR PROVISIONS
OF the Constitution OF the United
States on whicn the counsel rely are
found in Articles ", vi and XIV OF
the amendments. That the first ten
articles of the Fourteenth Amend
ment were not intended to limit the
powers OF State government in respect
to their own citizens, but to operate
on National government, alone, was
decided more than half century ago,
and that decision has been steadily
adhered to since.
IT WAS CoNTENDED,
however, in the. argument that
though originally the first ter
amendments were adopted as a limita
tion on Federal power, yet in so far al
they secure and recognize the fnnda.
mental rights of man, they make
them the privileges and immunities
of man as citizen of the United
States, and they cannot now be
abridged by the State under the Four
teenth Amendment.
"DUE PROCESS OF LAW"
1t is also contended that the pro
vision Of the Fourteenth Amendment
which declares that no State shall de
prive "any person Of life, liberty o.
property without due process of law, >
implies that every person charged
with crime in the State shall be en-
titled to trial by an impartial jury
and shall not be compelled to testif!
against himself.
THE OBJECTIONS
Are in brief;
One-That the statute OF the State a
construed by the court deprived tn,
petitioners OF trial by.an impartia
jury, and
Two-That Spies was compelled t.
give evidence against himself.
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE JURY.
Complaint is made that the tria
court acting under this statute and il
accordance with its requirement
compelled the petitioners agains
their will to submit to trial by q iur,
that was not impartial and thus de
prived them Of one Of the fundamen
tai rights which they had as citizen